Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

barbtries

(28,702 posts)
27. probably because they got filthy rich behind it.
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 11:32 AM
Sep 2013

"half the numbnutz in the House still think Iraq was a swell idea."
why should syria be different.

I was thinking that doesn't sound all that bad to me. dkf Sep 2013 #1
It sounds bad to Bill Kristol. nt geek tragedy Sep 2013 #2
Exactly. But he loves war. dkf Sep 2013 #3
It sounds bad to Bibi Netanyahu too. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #4
Maybe this will get them closer to a two state solution. dkf Sep 2013 #6
It sounds bad to Thomas Friedman too. avaistheone1 Sep 2013 #49
Agreed!!! Buddaman Sep 2013 #8
Not that I'm in favor of a military response, but I am curious. Baitball Blogger Sep 2013 #5
Of course not. half the numbnutz in the House still think Iraq was a swell idea. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #7
We should be thankful to have a president that understood that unilateral decisions Baitball Blogger Sep 2013 #10
Well, he understands that the President can't act unilaterally geek tragedy Sep 2013 #20
Let's be honest. Baitball Blogger Sep 2013 #23
We'd be having it, but we'd be in much more danger of losing it. nt geek tragedy Sep 2013 #25
probably because they got filthy rich behind it. barbtries Sep 2013 #27
They're voting against Obama jmowreader Sep 2013 #47
No. Thank God the Reps are reflexive. At least they may have kept us out of WWIII. dkf Sep 2013 #9
I hear you. Baitball Blogger Sep 2013 #11
Would a Democratic president have as much trouble for a Kosovo redux? blm Sep 2013 #14
Congratulations to Bush for assuring the certain death of Geneva Conventions, and blm Sep 2013 #12
That's ridiculous. This belongs in an international court, not in the court of the US deciders dkf Sep 2013 #13
That will not happen ever again. blm Sep 2013 #15
Take your false equivalency and shove it. Maedhros Sep 2013 #46
I was being facetious - point being that the bottom line to forced inaction blm Sep 2013 #51
International courts are a joke and not an effective argument against military strikes. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #18
The US cannot be expected to be the sole enforcer of international treaties. That is ridiculous. dkf Sep 2013 #21
That is the argument. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #22
That's right. We have got to come to terms with the fact that sometimes a bad thing happens in this totodeinhere Sep 2013 #42
Or bad things in the rest of the world we can do something about (with positive results)... deurbano Sep 2013 #48
If the Geneva Conventions depend on the US illegally bombing other countries geek tragedy Sep 2013 #16
Then put Clinton on trial for Kosovo. blm Sep 2013 #30
Kosovo was a success, but is as outdated of a model geek tragedy Sep 2013 #31
Because weapons and their operators are dumber now? blm Sep 2013 #50
The US is weaker relative the rest of the planet geek tragedy Sep 2013 #55
What makes you claim that AlQaeda is the alternative here? blm Sep 2013 #56
Bush isn't the one that was supposed to be prosecuting Bush's war crimes. JoeyT Sep 2013 #52
I concur - and it will always be that way as long as Bushes live. blm Sep 2013 #54
OTOH, Obama and Kerry have been proven truth tellers now: freshwest Sep 2013 #57
Thanks for your post, freshwest.. and the link Cha Sep 2013 #61
Oh, please. You're describing Superman, not the US government. No heroes here, pal. n/t ocpagu Sep 2013 #58
I doubt the next group of victims of chemical weapons are looking blm Sep 2013 #59
Yeah, they are desperate asking Obama to save them by striking them with missiles... n/t ocpagu Sep 2013 #60
Oh, I didn't know the plans called for striking villages and towns. blm Sep 2013 #62
I actually see this as a way out for Obama, he did not jump when the report went out Assad had used Thinkingabout Sep 2013 #17
I think he's being honest here--he's a true believer in non-proliferation geek tragedy Sep 2013 #19
Which is funny because we have all the WMDs. Seems hypocritical doncha think? dkf Sep 2013 #24
Possession and use are two different things nt geek tragedy Sep 2013 #26
So what is the statute of limitations on use of chemical weapons? rhett o rick Sep 2013 #28
I have been arguing that our official position on Syria's use of chemical weapons should be geek tragedy Sep 2013 #29
That doesn't seem like a morally tenable position. DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2013 #32
I see dozens of homeless people every week where I live. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #34
Maybe "so what" is not the best answer. But spending 200 million on bombing Syria is rhett o rick Sep 2013 #35
There is a continuum between bombing someone and callous indifference/nt DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2013 #37
Humanitarian aid to the refugees is a good thing. I hope that we can all agree that the world totodeinhere Sep 2013 #43
Well right now its "so what", "who cares" Iliyah Sep 2013 #44
I misunderstood. nm rhett o rick Sep 2013 #36
I would like the precedent. whttevrr Sep 2013 #33
My brother says this is all due to Bush's invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Mellow Drama Sep 2013 #38
Yes, Bush showed us the folly of overseas adventurism, nt geek tragedy Sep 2013 #39
Even without context, bombing Syria is stupid Demeter Sep 2013 #40
Your brother is right dem in texas Sep 2013 #41
I'd rather look like the chicken in this case, rather than glowing Sep 2013 #53
No it does not make sense. Your post that is. Rebellious Republican Sep 2013 #45
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Per the NY Times--no vote...»Reply #27